De sang froid

It boggles the mind. If they think another nickel can be squeezed out of a piece of material, they'll squeeze. The only reason I can think of that this story was retold was that the producers figured the audience was so stupid that they either never had seen the original or didn't know that there WAS an original. Well, maybe the assumption isn't that far off base. As a collective we seem to have dropped a good couple of IQ points somewhere along the way. Back in the 1960s Stanley Kaufman wrote an essay on "the film generation." In one of his classes he brought up Preminger's Joan of Arc, and his students did an impromptu comparison with Dreyer. His students don't do that anymore. They can't. They never heard of Dreyer. In the original "In Cold Blood," there is a lot of artsiness and pop psychology. It isn't a timeless classic, but it's a well-made movie. I don't know why anyone felt a remake was a good idea except, as I suggested, there might be another nickel left in it. The shot-by-shot remake of Psycho was a disgrace. It wasn't that long ago, by geological standards, that when a movie became a classic it was left alone. Can anyone imagine making "Gone With the Wind" now, without its being followed up by "Gone With the Wind, Part 2: Scarlett's Revenge"? What an insult this movie is. It's not badly done, but the motives behind its creation are scurrilous.

This is the movie that I have been hoping and waiting for since I read the book with the same title about 3 or 4 years ago, and I was not disappointed by the movie. I especially loved Don S. Davis as Roy Church. I recommend this movie for anyone who has ever read the book, or for anyone in general who's a fan of non-fiction movies on historical crimes.

A long-form TV adaptation of Truman Capote's book of the same name. It's presented well, but perhaps more intent on staying true to the detail of the book than keeping the audience entertained or in suspense. The story could most likely be better told in half the time, but if the real-life crime and the people behind it are of intrigue then this is worth a watch.

Ok first of all I know it's a remake of a great film so I will not bore you with the story you already know. Now I think that this is a little better because of the talent of Eric Roberts and Anthony Edwards. It's a story that should be seen in all retrospect of this film and the original. I really think that both films have great qualities and should be seen on DVD or Video. I own it on DVD(The one with Eric Roberts) and it's great. It's hard to find on DVD but I have one and if you can find it buy it. Out of 4 stars I give it 3 1/2 stars.

Meticulously detailed, way too much so, making this a very long and drawn out version of the famed novel. It's admirable they wanted to include as much of the book in the film, but sometimes being more selective in what you include is an asset in a movie. It does have respectable period detail, and it is well acted by everyone, good cinematography. It's main problem is it's extreme length and the fact it takes way too long to climax. . Still, there are rewarding moments along the way. It is surprisingly subdued and non violent. The 1967 Richard Brooks version is far better and much shorter. Check out a very young Ryan Reynolds who plays Bobby Rupp.